admiralteal @ admiralteal @kbin.social

Posts

0

Comments

795

Joined

2 yr. ago

AlphaPhoenix has a video about this, showing how even techniques that are designed to create geometrically simplistic districts can absolutely be manipulated to get you practically any election result you want, with sufficient input data and well-defined goals.

There's more than enough fuzz in the "shortest possible line" idea to allow for manipulation. And those shortest possible lines will often, by nature, divide population centers, cracking urban voices that tend to have different political opinions than the non-urban voices that will be more likely to be packed by this system. It's easy to imagine that this algorithm will systemically favor conservatives because of how they don't tend to live in cities.

Algorithmically-decided districts will also inherently ignore communities, both historic and demographic, again creating a high cracking likelihood and creating outsized representation to the dominant political groups.

These tech-bro-thinking solutions will never be the answer. The answer to redistricting is to have a controlled political process with checks and balances. Nonpartisan commissions, transparent review,

If you have a particular goal in mind when designing your election map, you'll achieve it. Be careful, though, because Goodhart's Law applies. Elections can be made to order. And focusing on one measure of "success" for a fair map inherently reduces the effects of others. If we go too far down this rabbit hole, we're designing our maps to get us the election results we want, which is democratically backwards.

Which is, of course, how we got INTO this mess. The GOP are designing maps with a priority on winning and maintaining power above all else. Above having communities held together as communities. Above making sure the various demographics all each get their own says. Above having a healthy, competitive contest of elections.

There's no such thing as an apolitical, objective, quantitatively "right" or fair map. We can only judge maps off of subjective, political standards.

So what this internet stranger will tell you is that you shouldn't try to come up with any simple test for the correctness of an election map. You should be holistic and compromising -- both are necessary to get fair maps. The process must be bi- or nonpartisan and it must be highly transparent.

Which is not the case in Wisconsin. It is a 100% political process carried out by agents acting in the most cynical, heinous bad faith. The Wisconsin GOP wants to win at any cost. Democracy is an obstacle to their power. Equity and fairness are vices to them. This veto is a good thing. The lawsuits are a good thing. The GOP needs to be called out and shamed loudly and often. Because in spite of everything I said about it being impossible to objectively tell a map is fair, when a map is THIS unfair even a child can call it out rightly.

The Proud Boys was started as an anti-masturbation support group for a bunch of self-proclaimed porn addict incels.

I don't really have a point or joke. Just wanted to type that true sentence.

Huh? Did you only read that single sentence from the entire thing I wrote? I posted explaining my take on what the problem being described in this article really is. Then how this situation doesn't just affect the older, house-rich folks, but how it goes on to hurt all of us. And moreover how the fixes for the general problems in housing policy to help everyone get into more affordable homes would also help these same people.

... and your takeaway from what I wrote is that I'm white knighting for boomers?

That's very frustrating for me.

Dark patterns.

All the big tech firms do this shit all over the place because the regulators are sound asleep at the wheel.

Why'd you put this in reply to my comment?

This is part of a growing class of "house rich, cash poor" people.

They can't afford to move because the sale price of their existing (oversized) houses would not be enough to buy existing stock of smaller houses, in spite of the crazy market. The old houses they live in are increasingly in exurbs or even age-restricted communities that the kind of new family that might need a house that size can't be in for totally different reasons.

Plus they might want to stay in that community. Maybe that's where their friends or family are. Their doctors. All that kind of stuff. And it's not unreasonable for a person to want to keep living where they have a social network.

They also can't rent out rooms or ADUs because local zoning laws arbitrarily forbid it either directly or by enforcing things like minimum parking requirements that are not achievable. Which would be one great way to increase housing supply and let people stay where they are; turn extra space into more housing. But these boomer houses tend to be in the most restrictive type of suburbs that stifle the rights of the homeowners and prevents sustainable growth.

They increasingly don't have pensions because those disappeared in their lifetimes. Retirements funds got fucked by a variety of financial catastrophes in the intervening years, so they're increasingly relying on social security checks to pay for their (mandatory) car, big ass house expenses, and all that stuff. They're living well above their means and even if they realize it and want to make a change, the actual ability to do so is a massive problem.

The net result of this situation is even more tightness in the housing market. Even less real stock, since the ability to downsize is so lousy.

This thread has a sure lot of angry people and boomer hate in it. Which I get, but this is all part of the same housing problem with the same solutions -- more low-cost/smaller homes need to be built and fewer restrictive codes/zoning rules preventing common-sense housing. A lot of people want to develop the properties that people want to buy, but city policies are often the biggest obstacle to them -- that and lack of financial products to fund development thanks to the gradual snuffing out of local banks.

Wouldn't filing for nomad residence when you have an actual residence be fraud?

I mean, we don't even know that this execution caused pain. Pain is subject and the only guy who can comment on it is dead.

All we know is that the guy was thrashing around and then seized on the bed over the course of the 20ish minutes from administering the gas to when he apparently went lifeless.

But it sure sounds like it was excruciating to me.

"I haven't actually bothered to learn what happened, what's going on, or made any effort to imagine the situation fully or understand what people are saying, but I think other people are dumb."

Go away.

Yep, except that has two huge flaws -- first, how do you make sure he really doesn't know its coming so isn't inflicted with other kinds of torture like prolonged sleep deprivation (because sleep = death). Second, how do you maintain the spectacle for the onlookers that have bloodlust in their hearts, who these executions are designed to make happy?

The pain will come from the desire to not be killed, i.e., holding your breath and resisting breathing the gas.

Just because the gas ITSELF doesn't necessarily cause pain does not mean the METHOD isn't going to be immensely painful. Judging the technique based on how an unknowing or cooperative victim will perform is just so dumb when it is an execution method.

The idea that DNA is extremely predictive of phenotype is already kind of... ehh.

There may be some very large feature predictions you can mostly make, but something as specific as recognizing a person? No way in hell. Far too many environmental factors for appearance.

There's so many little vignettes like this in the rise to prominence of the antichoice movement. Schaeffer is one of my favorites, but there's some other really weird little corners.

Another fun one was all these religious/evangelical schools that, in the post-Brown era, were facing down a future where they may have to start paying taxes if they wanted to maintain segregation. These institutions saw that their strictly racist policies were becoming politically unpalatable, so they sought out a way better issue to get that power. Still happening today, by the way, where explicitly religious schools are actively campaigning to get your tax dollars while continuing to teach bigotry and nonsense. Be VERY wary any time you hear a politician mention "school choice".

I also enjoy that Norma McCorvey (AKA Roe) was later turned into and paraded a bout as a pro life campaigner, saying she regretted the abortion and lawsuit and all that. Only to reveal later in her life that they paid her HANDSOMELY to do so and the beliefs and words were totally insincere, she just needed the money. I think that tells you a lot about the underlying moral fiber of these religious whackos.

If you're from Georgia, you know that the GADOT are total morons.

Just look at the southeastern rail corridors. Brightline from Miami to Orlando with extension already planned to Jacksonville. Fast rail service being developed from Raleigh to DC. And what's GADOT doing to be part of the future for the region?

Well, nothing. Literally nothing. Making the ATL-SAV Amtrak cooridor take as long as possible. But at least they're going to gift a few dozen millions of dollars to NS and the major cargo shippers by raising the Talmadge (edit: while already planning its BILLION dollar replacement).

Well, surely they're out there in Atlanta fixing the unspeakable terrible congestion by helping pay for common-sense, costsaving mass transit, right?

Nope. More highways.

How about rural GA? Are they at least making sure the state roads are safe and well-maintained? Wait, why are you walking away?

When FLORIDA's transportation planners are making you look bad, you've got a fucking problem.

Just so long as you understand that your desire to end the life of imaginary people who are irredeemably bad WILL lead to the death of real people that are redeemable. Not to mention innocent people.

Though I don't think it is up to you to decide that any life is definitely less preferably to death. Only the ones living those lives can decide that.